I see things that make me weep and in those tears lie shattered dreams.

More fun and games tonight I see. It’s like watching a tragic comedy. No wonder I am weeping. You see, this is exactly what I have known and feared, the hijacking of ‘science’ in the interest of predetermined agenda… from two opposing sides. Each claiming that their ‘science’ is more relevant than another’s science. It seems that the mere possibility that there is uncertainty is enough to raise the vitriol to maximum.

Folks, there are a few people (more than a few?) posting here who have closed their minds. And that closure has blinded their scientific reasoning. There is no room for uncertainty. No room for new data, information and analysis. One side claims ‘it’s settled’. The other claims ‘it’s all false’. The reality (I avoid the word truth) is somewhere in-between. Science, true science is never ‘settled’. There is always doubt. Indeed that is the very essence of falsification - a single observation that is not aligned with the theory is sufficient to cast doubt on the most ‘settled’ of theories. Otherwise we are relying on faith alone.

This is a lesson I’ve observed in practice. People with the best of intentions designing experiments that ‘prove’ they are correct. People discarding results that dare to contradict their theories. People who cannot see - physically not see - a contradictory observation, like being blind to the ape in the basketball game simply because of their extreme focus on the ball.

Experience has taught me that there is extreme hubris in thinking we can understand complex systems at the level of causation. At best we can theorise and take the path that leads to least harm. Depending on how you define ‘harm’ of course!

So in answer to a few questions that have been asked and supposedly unanswered….

1. I do not blindly accept expertise that is outside my own. I listen and assess. Ultimately I judge and so do you dear reader. After all, it’s outside your expertise! If you do not assess and consider the merits of the argument that I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you. I consider myself an expert, albeit in a very narrow field and I much prefer people to question me, probe, demand examples compared to those who blindly agree. After all I might just be wrong! I often am. I’m not too old to learn!
2. To the point - AGW. Have I deliberately lost my sense of relative timescales and am I wantonly applying the wrong tool to the job? No. But I am not a fan of uniformitarianism. I also have some understanding of noise, precision and measurement error, enough to know that we cannot separate events that occurred million (or billions) of years ago at the same resolution as we can today. This is, in my opinion, a fundamental problem - and our minds do not deal with matters of precision well. We are not intuitive statisticians. It is all too easy to focus on ‘accuracy’ and not understand that precision and system constraints (particularly in complex systems) lead to unexpected outcomes. To that end, I keep my mind open - open enough to try and see multiple causes overlapping, interacting and obfuscating the geological record.
3. Show me the evidence of no credible scientific publication and I will show you a flaw in the scientific method we have today. Peer review is a crock. Publication is a crock. Who is the arbiter of ‘credibility’? Is it longevity? Money? Gravitas? Editorial policy? Any scientific publication that is truly scientific must entertain alternative perspectives, alternative interpretations - after all we must remember a theory cannot be ‘proved’ only falsified. As scientists we should be seeking the examples and evidence that are most likely to debunk a theory, not those that are self-fulfilling.
4. Am I a sceptic? Yes I am. Eternally. And if experts outside my own domain are not equally sceptical they are not, in my opinion, worthy of being called experts. The sad reality is that of all the people who have earned science degrees, only a small portion do true science. Many are simply technicians working with the training they have and doing the best they can. And… pet theories, change over time so what we know to be ’true’ is a product of culture as much as a product of science. So am I grumpy? Yes? Am I old? I’m getting there. Am I calling fraud, conspiracy, crime? No, not at all… but more on that a bit later.
5. Ah scientific debate. Why isn’t it happening? One need only read a bit about the philosophy of science to see some of the reasons. It’s not arrogance or laziness or enlightenment. It’s more likely that there has been a fundamental shift in shared beliefs - a paradigm change in the preferred theory. That’s not a bad thing in itself. It happens all the time. Things that are considered outrageous today were once considered the norm. Things that are considered normal in one society are considered crimes in others. The concept of scientific debate cannot be separated from our own humanity. We are not rational animals - at best we are homo fabulous - the story tellers. We make stories from our observations and if enough of us believe the story is good we repeat it. Failing to do so is enough to lead to ostracisation. We let fear (even unacknowledged fear), unproven trust in ‘experts’ and the status quo control our lives much more than we allow ourselves to be open to uncertainty and indecision.

Ok - those are my answers. Now to my opinion on things.

I think that much of the so-called climate denialism or whatever you want to call it stems not from the concept of AGW but from the unproven, ill-thought and downright silly at times, commentary and suggestions that are dragged along with the theory. So-called solutions that may be worse than the problem, ignoring (or ignorance of) some of the much more difficult questions in favour or shoot-from-the-hip ideas that just happen to give rise to a basal shift in wealth, power and influence. Much of the non-scientific AGW community (those who are not themselves open to new ideas) are telling stories without deep introspection. There is a large (and vocal) righteous choir pushing their agenda and calling everyone else to toe the agreed line - an act that is, in my opinion, out of step with the very science they are basing their stance upon!

What we are seeing at the moment is social conflict like we have not seen in recent (say 40-50 years) times. We are seeing seismic shifts in multiple dimensions, threats from many directions, some known, some unknown. So yes this is political as much as an argument around science. We are political (or tribal) by nature.

I wonder how any one of us can believe we control one iota of our social construct. No. The society we live in has evolved as much through random selection, luck and happenstance as we have. It is pure hubris to believe we control any aspect. We may influence, we may make decisions but at best the results are more chance than plan. Why? Simply because we are all so different with different experiences, perspectives, wants, needs, desires.  If I could weave a magic tapestry and catch you all in the threads of my dream of a perfect world, it would be imperfect for you. There is no universal utopia.

I do wish we could all grow up, but wouldn’t it be so boring if we did?

For the AGW mob - think about social root causes as much as scientific causes. Population levels, living standards and similar issues. Any AGW would be much less problematic if there were fewer of we anthropogenics around and if we live different lives. Let's face it the evidence is clear that we have long been living beyond our means.

For the non-AGW mob - just about every case where we continue to foul our own nest has ended in disaster for some at the expense of others. In small ecologies this is easy to see. Species death, degraded water quality, tracts of mono-species, increases in disease and death. In my simple mind, polluting our own nest cannot end well and we need to acknowledge that.

For the solutions - ah… as if I were some guru… but you know, alway with an opinion! At least part of the solution should be around the ideas of bootstrapping. Using existing technology and resources to transition to less impactful approaches. Sounds simple but I know there’s as much difficulty in achieving that lofty ideal as in any other. Equally we must address the social upheaval, the social change. At some stage we might even need to agree on some fundamentals - as if that were likely.

In the meantime…. I am not a member of the AIG (nor the AusIMM anymore). I have no political agenda in those august organisations. So please take my advice on merit - grow up and act like adults! Life is not black and white nor is science despite what we may like to believe.